In what I think is a long-overdue post, Microsoft is finally explaining how Windows Live FolderShare will be replaced by Windows Live Sync in the coming weeks and what that means to users…

Dear FolderShare friends,

We want to let you know what's next for FolderShare, and to make you aware of some important upcoming changes.

In December, we will release a new product called Windows Live Sync. You can think of it as FolderShare 2.0. It's going to look familiar and offer the same great features, plus:

More folders and files - sync up to 20 folders with 20,000 files each.

Integration with Windows Live ID - no more extra sign-in stuff to remember.

Integration with the Recyle Bin - no more separate Trash folder to fiddle with.

New client versions for both Windows and Mac.

Unicode support - sync files in other languages.

A huge part of Sync's success story depends on FolderShare users like you. When Sync releases, FolderShare goes into retirement. That means your FolderShare software will stop working and will ask you to upgrade to Sync. Once you do, Sync will automatically rebuild your personal folders. We expect a lot of new users when Sync is released, so if you can't sign in right away, please give it a little time.

Here's the part you need to pay attention to: Sync will not be able to rebuild your shared libraries. If you have a lot of shared libraries, you should hop over to the FolderShare website while it's still available and copy all that information. You'll need it to rebuild your shared libraries in Sync.

You should also note that the Professional option is being retired with the FolderShare name. Sync has a single offer, which provides free synchronization for up to 20 libraries and 20,000 files. We'll be working to raise those numbers as our service grows.

Thanks for being a FolderShare user! We're excited about delivering an even better file-synchronization experience to customers like you. We hope you'll come along as we move forward with Windows Live Sync.

Sincerely,

The Windows Live Sync (formerly FolderShare) team

Curiously, they left out the best part: Windows Live Sync will integrate with Windows Live Photo Gallery to automatically sync your photo libraries across multiple PCs as well.

Discuss this Article 80

Gorath and Mike you are both wrong and Lindy is "more" correct.
The CPU never handles Windows Desktop display video. The only time a CPU will process video is with software rendering, like in Virtual PC where you have a virtual video card. A CPU will decode some video, like in DVD or BR playback when a hardware decoder is not present, but that is decoding not final rendering of video display.
Whether you use aero or not, the GPU does all of the video rendering. It just does it in DX9 mode when not using Aero. In Aero mode it will use the higher end 3D functions of the GPU in DX10 mode.
It's a simple fact that aero taxes your video subsystem more than non aero. The question is how much more? That depends on your Video card GPU and the drivers. I would not run aero on a notebook with anything less than a NVIDIA 8300, 8400, 9300, 9400 GPU. It's been proven that it will eat more battery, however only a small amount usually and it really depends on things like drivers and BIOS.
If you have a desktop PC that can play games good, perhaps a mid range $150 Video card then turning off aero wont speed up your video experience, because the video card is powerful enough drive aero as fast as non-aero. Also with a desktop PC you don't have to worry about batter life. Turning off animation while still using aero will make things quicker.
Have you ever seen dream scene, or whatever that Ultimate extra is called run on a notebook with a integrated gpu? Man that is ugly the fans will kick on in just a matter of seconds and it will kill your battery fast.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/05/14/aero-an...http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/tamir/archive/2007/05/15/Vista-drain-...
There are plenty more if you want them.

bettieblu
You seem to be confusing playback of video files with display of the desktop.
We're discussing use of the GPU in OS rendering which was done by the CPU prior to Vista and is still doe by the CPU on systems that don't have a GPU that meets the requirements of Aero.

Mike you are totally clueless.
Windows desktop rending in Windows XP is done with a GPU, NOT THE CPU. With XP is all 2D, but it still uses the GPU which is just your video card. GPU is marketing name that ATI or NVIDIA came up with. Its your video card, you know you install video drivers in XP/Vista so the OS will use the video card.
In Vista, Aero uses 3D functions of your GPU/Video card provided your GPU/Video card can do DX9 with Pixel Shadder 2.0.
I ONLY mentioned video playback because morons like you think it has something to do with the Video card and get confused. Video decoding, like DVD or BR decoding requires decoding and that can be a software video decoder or a hardware video decoder. Usually a video decoder will be put on a video card, its a separate chip, like ATI video card that has the TV tuner on them aka ATI All-in-Wonder. Or sometimes the the video card company, like NVIDIA, will write a application that will use the GPU to do the decoding, aka NVIDIA pure video but will only work with their GPU's.
Man you are such a tool.

Unless you have very specific codecs, the GPU doesn't do any decoding of video. Nvidia used to have "purevideo", which is a seperate, paid for codec, that allowed certain video formats to be decoded on their Geforce cards, and ATi had a similar solution.
However, since the introduction of the Geforce 8600GT, I believe video decoding (of certain kinds of streams) on GPUs has become a standard feature on all newer series cards.
But still, this has nothing to do with aero, and you can use these specific GPU-accelerated video decoders with or without aero.

Bettieblu, I really am at pain to say this, but you have misunderstood some aspects quite dramatically.
XP's display subsystem was software driven. However, you are partially correct in that "some" windowsing features could be accelerated by hardware calls. For example, Matrox cards, as well as Ati's FireGL series, or Nvidia's Quadro series traditionally supplied very streamlined drivers for windowing, resulting in lower system resource usage than non-workstation cards.
This is the same system that Vista uses when Aero is turned off.
In this mode, however, even though the GPU helps, it is still a cpu-based process by and large.
With aero, the vast majority of window drawing is done by the GPU, and very little by the CPU, resulting, ass ha been stated, in a system that can still draw a higly responsive desktop even when the CPU is massively consumed by other processes.

bettiblu
I actually was trying to give you a graceful way out of your totaly bogus statements by letting you claim you thought we were talking about things like video decoding but you just kept on going with a reply of calling me clueless. Oh, well, so much for my being nice to the arrogantly ignorant.

Gorath you are much closer to the truth now. ATI uses a separate decoding chip. It was the Theater 500 or whatever that was used by some cable company set top boxes at one time. Now is looks like its called the
# ATI Avivo™ HD Video and Display Platform
* Dedicated unified video decoder (UVD) for H.264/AVC and VC-1 video formats "
http://ati.amd.com/products/aiwhd/specs.html
Video card vendors like NVIDIA have started to include video playback through their GPU in the video drivers. However it only works with their GPU and for high end or new stuff like BR you still need their Purevideo. If you buy their flagship video card it will come with it, otherwise you purchase it.
I have a friend that built his own Vista Home Media Center, and used it to playback BR video. At first he had some low end video card and his CPU would rail almost 80+% when watching a BR movie. He later upgraded to a ATI card that had HDMI out, that carried the sound as well and dropped the CPU down to below 20%.
None of this has anything to do with with desktop video with or with out Aero. Windows Desktop video NEVER users the CPU, Aero or no Aero, provided you have even the most basic of video drivers installed.

I didn't understand bettiblu to say that a TV tuner card has decoding hardware...I believe that he was making a comparison...saying that having a seperate video decoder onboard is much like having a tuner chip onboard a video card...but, thats just the way that I read it...
--tayme

Ok lets take out video as in video streams, DVD, BR, Quicktime anything that requires decoding/codec.
Lets talk Desktop video only. the icons, menu bars, applications like Word etc.
With Windows XP the VIDEO CARD renders this in 2D and the CPU has nothing to to do with it.
With Vista if you select Aero, the VIDEO CARD renders this using 3D functions, like version 2.0 pixel shaders to give you things like the glass features and the CPU is not used.
"XP's display subsystem was software driven." For the 2D desktop that is FLAT OUT WRONG.
If you are talking about streaming video like a quicktime video, DVD, BR then yes with out a hardware decoder/codec then XP will use the CPU totally.

Coming back to the third topic of discussion (I think), do these emails that were leaked have any bearing on the actual lawsuit? I think the allegation here is that although Microsoft did make it clear that Vista Capable PCs wouldn't be able to run Aero, they also advertised Aero as one of the pillars of Vista. The question is, is Vista Home Basic really Vista? (At least, that's what I got from it.) Regarding the emails, it's scary when internal emails are made public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit
Read 1990 and on, learn a few things.
"In 1991, S3 Graphics introduced the first single-chip 2D accelerator"
"by 1995, all major PC graphics chip makers had added 2D acceleration support to their chips. By this time, fixed-function Windows accelerators had surpassed expensive general-purpose graphics coprocessors in Windows performance, and these coprocessors faded away from the PC market."
I would say by the time XP shipped in 2001, any PC that could run XP has a 2D acceleration rendering the desktop in a GPU and not touching the CPU at all for desktop rendering.

"Oh, well, so much for my being nice to the arrogantly ignorant."
That is FRAKING funny coming from you. When you get done reading my last link would you like one or two slices of humble pie?
In fact if read the Integrated graphics section of the link it would seem Lindy knew way more than you Mr. Microsoft.
"Computers with integrated graphics account for 90% of all PC shipments[5]. These solutions are cheaper to implement than dedicated graphics solutions, but are less capable. Historically, integrated solutions were often considered unfit to play 3D games or run graphically intensive programs such as Adobe Flash[citation needed]. (Examples of such IGPs would be offerings from SiS and VIA circa 2004.)[6] However, today's integrated solutions such as the Intel's GMA X3000 ( Intel G965 chipset), AMD's Radeon HD 3200 (AMD 780G chipset) and NVIDIA's GeForce 8200 (NVIDIA nForce 730a) are more than capable of handling 2D graphics from Adobe Flash or low stress 3D graphics[7]. However, the aforementioned GPUs still struggle with high-end video games. Modern desktop motherboards often include an integrated graphics solution and have expansion slots available to add a dedicated graphics card later."

Your link proves even more that Windows XP never used software rendering.
XP used GDI/Direct X and video card drivers to move that. Vista uses DWM and to get that to work with your video card you will need WDDM video driver.
In both cases they use the video card.
So why did you link it?

Lindy's response to you in this thread.
"Since 95+ % of notebooks have Intergrated graphics chips from Intel or ATI most of the time, I am going to go out on a limb and say his $400 Acer notebook has X3100 Intel GPU at best, hardly a 3D GPU in any form. Aero will tax an X3100 more than Windows Standard period. In fact I bet he would get better battery life with out Aero."
I guess Lindy was wrong by 5%, according to the Wiki link. The point is he schooled you. Integrated graphics run on most PC's. Aero vs non Aero on those machines would probably show a performance difference, as they struggle with 3D rendering.
Tool of the year goes Mike Galos.

FYI. My $400 laptop has integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 4500M. I have been surfing the web and playing webkinz Flash games on line and don't see any difference with Aero off or on. The Windows experience indexes did not change. At first I thought that the graphics did not look as good without Aero,but I don't think that I can tell the difference.
I also read somewhere that turning Aero off could decrease performance in some cases. I don't remember the source butu what the heck do I know anyway. I would bet that my crude test is not valid anyway. Interesting discussion. Sorta mind boggling in fact due to the disagreement.
More OT. Mike, would you believe that those 99 cent spiral CFL in 13, 20 and 26w are still on sale!!!! The isolated display is a row away from the light section which is selling them for much, much more, including the same GE brand, but different model. Go figure. Well, since you can see above the sheet rock, my wife won't let me replace the recessed lights throughout the first floor.

@DRWAM Windows Aero and Windows Basic look the same in terms of the shape, the rounding of the corners the buttons etc. You don't get glass, thumbnail preview, 3D flip and stuff like that. That 4500M is pretty new and slightly better than the x3100 from Intel, you got a heck of a deal on that notebook. Did it come with wireless N?
Windows Standard or Classic take you back to Window 2000, much less going on there for sure. Windows Standard I think is the Windows server 2003 default, Classic is Windows 2000.

I sincerely try to keep all this stuff straight. Why can't they be consistent with a product name? I'm a MCSE 2003 and getting ready to upgrade to MCSE 2008. That should show that I'm committed to their products but constantly confusing people will not get them ahead of the competition... it is really like they aren't able to communicate within the company and everyone has the next great idea.. (idea=new product name for something they are already doing).

they change it because they don't think what they currently have is good enough.. but, it is good.. enough.. they are the leader.. they need to stop worrying about the competition because the competition isn't really competition..

"No Mike I said SHOW US PROOF to your comment."
You will find it hard to get Mike to show proof to his comments. They are just let out like machine gun fire, without ever looking back or backing them up.
Like when he said Microsoft don't lie in ads. They did.
Like when he said that there's more VB code than any other in the world. Had nothing to back that up. I still would find it extremelly hard to believe. C would be king in that arena.
Yeah, proof, who needs it. Right, Mike? ;)

Bettie, the very few cards that fully support the 2D window accelerator functions will run XP at full resolution, with full colour depth even with no drivers installed. However, these cards are rare.
some FireGL, Quadros, and (IIRC, all) Matrox cards can do this.
However, it's not the case with general consumer cards, where running them with "standard VGA" drivers gives terrible performance, because they don't support the function calls.
So, yeah, XP could support hardware acceleration of certain functions, but this isn't quite the same as having a hardware compositied and rendered gui.

"Bettie, the very few cards that fully support the 2D window accelerator functions will run XP at full resolution, with full colour depth even with no drivers installed. However, these cards are rare."
Rare??????????? WTF are you talking about?? Do you have $25?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130098
Gorath I have come to the conclusion you are complete idiot. I send you that link and you still dont get it. It spells it out clear as day. I cant believe this is even disputable?????? The sky is blue by the way.
Here from Intel, the GMA 950 can do 2048x1536 at 75 Hz maximum resolution, 2D accelerated and that is a notebook GPU from 2006.
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm
That would pretty much cover 99% of all monitors out there right now at that GPU is 3 years old.
Here is their latest Integrated GPU....
"The Intel® G45 Express Chipset, with the next-generation Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator X4500HD (Intel® GMA X4500HD), includes built-in support for full 1080p high-definition video playback, including Blu-ray* disc movies. This powerful video engine provides users with a rich, new media experience to deliver smooth HD playback without the need for add-in video cards or decoders. Intel® GMA X4500HD comes with Intel® Clear Video Technology, a combination of video processing hardware and software technologies designed to enhance the visual experience."
So that GPU not only maxes out 2D, but if you install their codec/driver the GPU will handle BR decoding. That GPU is probably targeted at media center PC's.
Full 2D acceleration at 1600x1200 was capable under Windows 98 with Vesa Local Bus cards, as in VLB, prior to PCI, prior to AGP and now PCIE. 2D windows desktop speed was maxed out 10 years ago. Word can only draw so fast.
3D is another story. DirectX8 and then 9 battled OpenGL and Microsoft won the battle. Only the very latest Intergrated GPU's GMA 950 and above fully support DX9 and even then they are not gaming GPU's.

What I Use

Like many, I was hoping to see a new Lumia flagship before the end of 2014, and while I was pleasantly surprised in some ways by both the Lumia 735 and 830, neither offers the level of performance or best-in-market camera quality I had come to expected from Microsoft/Nokia's high-end devices. So I pulled the trigger on an unlocked Windows Phone flagship that will hopefully take me through at least the first half of this year. Or until Microsoft gets off its low-end fixation and satisfies the needs of its biggest fans....More

It's been a while since the last What I Use, but there haven't been many major changes since late last year: Surface Pro 3 has become my go-to travel companion, I've added a third cellphone line for testing Windows Phone, Android and iPhone side-by-side, and have rotated through some new tablets and other devices. We've also switched from FIOS to Comcast and added to our set-top box collection....More